Comments on: Outside the grid http://wrecking.org/cbd/2006/01/23/outside-the-grid/ Software studies, technical communication, writing studies, web accessibility, and new media. Life with my girls. Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:33:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: cbd http://wrecking.org/cbd/2006/01/23/outside-the-grid/#comment-247 cbd Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:45:58 +0000 http://wrecking.org/cbd/?p=112#comment-247 Beautiful. Part of the problem is that the conventional wisdom of site design contains gems like this from <a href="http://www.useit.com/alertbox/991114.html" rel="nofollow">Jakob Nielsen:</a> <blockquote>If 80% or more of the big sites do things in a single way, then this is the de-facto standard and you have to comply. Only deviate from a design standard if your alternative design has at least 100% higher measured usability.</blockquote> And this "80%" was once "90%", so Nielsen has lowered the threshhold for conformity. Boggle. Anyway, he's also offered us a <a href="http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040913.html" rel="nofollow">summary of the "standards" we should follow.</a> There's another stab at the rhetoric... Beautiful.

Part of the problem is that the conventional wisdom of site design contains gems like this from Jakob Nielsen:

If 80% or more of the big sites do things in a single way, then this is the de-facto standard and you have to comply. Only deviate from a design standard if your alternative design has at least 100% higher measured usability.

And this “80%” was once “90%”, so Nielsen has lowered the threshhold for conformity. Boggle. Anyway, he’s also offered us a summary of the “standards” we should follow. There’s another stab at the rhetoric…

]]> By: Daniel Anderson http://wrecking.org/cbd/2006/01/23/outside-the-grid/#comment-245 Daniel Anderson Wed, 25 Jan 2006 03:02:44 +0000 http://wrecking.org/cbd/?p=112#comment-245 Let's see, what else. Search box in upper right hand corner with redundantly labeled button--search. Hip URL with spatial, tool, or group metaphor--ispace, espace, linkspa--a metaphor that never plays out in the structure or design of the site. Folder tabs across the top, one of which will say shopping. Clever widgets to give you instant knowledge about things you already know--sunny and warm, high of 65. Quick poll to collect instant insights into things that really matter--Brad and Angelina: boy or girl? The sad part is, for me at least, it's easy to be seduced by the allure of these devices, well at least some of them. Or maybe its the allure of wanting to appeal to all or more people than is necessary or good for one. Or maybe these come across as necessary building codes in a world like academia or teaching that is so bound up in the corporate, traditional what have you. Getting to the point where one can write/code/build for the self or for some reason that might motivate spaces not shaped by the surrounding landscape is the challenge. Well said, that the standards and technology aren't the limiting factors. Let’s see, what else. Search box in upper right hand corner with redundantly labeled button–search. Hip URL with spatial, tool, or group metaphor–ispace, espace, linkspa–a metaphor that never plays out in the structure or design of the site. Folder tabs across the top, one of which will say shopping. Clever widgets to give you instant knowledge about things you already know–sunny and warm, high of 65. Quick poll to collect instant insights into things that really matter–Brad and Angelina: boy or girl?

The sad part is, for me at least, it’s easy to be seduced by the allure of these devices, well at least some of them. Or maybe its the allure of wanting to appeal to all or more people than is necessary or good for one. Or maybe these come across as necessary building codes in a world like academia or teaching that is so bound up in the corporate, traditional what have you. Getting to the point where one can write/code/build for the self or for some reason that might motivate spaces not shaped by the surrounding landscape is the challenge. Well said, that the standards and technology aren’t the limiting factors.

]]> By: cbd http://wrecking.org/cbd/2006/01/23/outside-the-grid/#comment-244 cbd Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:17:43 +0000 http://wrecking.org/cbd/?p=112#comment-244 Yes. I wouldn't be surprised if canonicity works with Karl's very clever notion of "corporate-traditional" design. I'd say there are corporate-traditional rhetorics, too—both the kind of "marketese" Nielsen critiques and the stripped-down prose which takes its place. Heck, here are the components I see in a corporate-traditional visual rhetoric: * use a three-column grid with navigation across the top * your logo (preferably with a swoosh) goes in the upper left * include a dominant visual of a smiling user above the fold * secondary navigation (privacy, etc) along the bottom * child pages should follow front page with very little differentiation What else? :) And I don't think standards, as in privacy or content standards and guidelines, are the problem; most of them are written to be flexibly interpreted. Designers, writers, and/or coders can figure out ways to do what they want visually, rhetorically, and technically while meeting the various standards which weigh on a site. If that's not the case, the standards-producing group, whether the W3C or a group of portfolio software developers, isn't doing it right. Yes. I wouldn’t be surprised if canonicity works with Karl’s very clever notion of “corporate-traditional” design. I’d say there are corporate-traditional rhetorics, too—both the kind of “marketese” Nielsen critiques and the stripped-down prose which takes its place. Heck, here are the components I see in a corporate-traditional visual rhetoric:

* use a three-column grid with navigation across the top
* your logo (preferably with a swoosh) goes in the upper left
* include a dominant visual of a smiling user above the fold
* secondary navigation (privacy, etc) along the bottom
* child pages should follow front page with very little differentiation

What else? :)

And I don’t think standards, as in privacy or content standards and guidelines, are the problem; most of them are written to be flexibly interpreted. Designers, writers, and/or coders can figure out ways to do what they want visually, rhetorically, and technically while meeting the various standards which weigh on a site. If that’s not the case, the standards-producing group, whether the W3C or a group of portfolio software developers, isn’t doing it right.

]]> By: Daniel Anderson http://wrecking.org/cbd/2006/01/23/outside-the-grid/#comment-242 Daniel Anderson Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:20:38 +0000 http://wrecking.org/cbd/?p=112#comment-242 Thanks for the pointer and the insights about it. What struck me was the honest admission that lots of innovation gets shut down out of habit or complacency. And, yes, the techrhet discussion of forms based Web sites seems relevant. What matters online now is currency and popularity--or so the cynical assessment might go. I think this might connect to your concern about ways in which claims to usability are made but not often substantiated. The habits are hard to break and extra work would go into un-gridlike sites, but it is more a problem of canonicity, almost. All the blogs are gridish. The commercial sites are gridish. Could something not be gridish without being lumped in a second class, graphical, feel good, artsy, and unserious category? Thanks for the pointer and the insights about it. What struck me was the honest admission that lots of innovation gets shut down out of habit or complacency. And, yes, the techrhet discussion of forms based Web sites seems relevant. What matters online now is currency and popularity–or so the cynical assessment might go. I think this might connect to your concern about ways in which claims to usability are made but not often substantiated. The habits are hard to break and extra work would go into un-gridlike sites, but it is more a problem of canonicity, almost. All the blogs are gridish. The commercial sites are gridish. Could something not be gridish without being lumped in a second class, graphical, feel good, artsy, and unserious category?

]]>